Skeptics and Conspiracies

There is no consensus among skeptics, except by accident.  And typically for different reasons.  Skeptics are my people.  I understand them.  A real skeptic is not afraid to question authority, nor does a skeptic oppose an idea because it originates from an authority.  Skeptics are professional doubters–not inclined to a supposition until reasons can substantiate it.  It is the analysis of these reasons that sets critical thinkers apart from the advertising-prone masses.

Which is why it pains me to see skeptics defending the official narrative of the WTC collapses without turning a critical eye on the details at its core.  There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of “truther” theories concerning the various aspects, and let me be clear: several non-official theories are far more outlandish than the official story.   For instance:

  1. The “No Planes” theory
  2. The Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) theory
  3. Any theory that denies the existence of Islamic terrorists hijacking planes
  4. Any theory invoking “remote controlled” airplanes

There are more nonsense “truther” theories as well, but the point is clear: all theories must be judged on their merits against objective standards.  The problem is that once a single “truther” theory is demonstrated to be false, that becomes ammunition to shoot down all “truther” theories, thus vindicating the official theory by default.  This is called “ground clearing” and it does little to buoy the official theory, only to distract from actual analysis of the official theory.

The WTC7 collapse is, by far, the most powerful prima facie evidence against the official theory–pointing not to any particular conclusion, but most poignantly to the fact that something about the dynamics of the collapse of building 7 is not being understood or explained correctly by the experts commissioned to do so.  For many skeptics of the official theory, the video of WTC7 collapsing at around 5:20 pm that day was the wake-up call to investigate further.  Yes, WTC1 and 2 looked strangely energetic and not simply a “collapse,” but we could always chalk that up our collective lack of context of the scale of the destruction.  WTC7, however, was never hit by a plane.  It suffered falling debris from the north tower and fires on several floors, but as yet, there has been no good explanation for why the internal structure gave way–nor especially how it failed in the particular way it did: as if it had all supporting structures severed simultaneously.  (That’s 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns failing on several floors at precise intervals such that the building fell at free fall speed for some amount of time greater than 0 seconds.)  There is simply not a clear explanation of how even a multi-story fire, even over several hours could induce that type of failure.

And yet, there are skeptics who in good faith, attempt to dismantle any suspicion surrounding the WTC7 collapse.  The article published in Skeptic Magazine (9/11/2006) by author Phil Mole (the conspiracist in me laughs) attempts to close the door on any doubts surrounding any government involvement of any aspect of the attacks that day.

Initially, Mole asks us to doubt the similarities between conventional controlled demolition (CD) and the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.  He makes a case for structural damage as root cause of the collapses based on the disparity between CD and the WTC collapses and anticipates the response to his argument:

A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?

The chances of predicting which floor the planes would hit is without argument so unlikely as to be impossible.  Even if someone went through the trouble to wire the buildings, hope the aircraft get hijacked without incident, etc. how could they know which floor the planes would hit?  But this is a lazy case for dismissal.  It’s lazy because it assumes two things which aren’t very likely:

  1. The planners were unable to predict that issue and plan for it, and
  2.  Technology does not exist to easily overcome this:

Remote control: A remote control detonator is much like a wire command detonator except without the wire. Its done by radio signal. The range of the transmitter and the number of frequencies it is capable of working on varies according to price. The receivers can be set to any frequency the owner wishes.

Radio detonation devices have been around for decades.  Combined with emulation software, in the hands of a professional, they can play Beethoven on a structure.  The ability to detonate from any given floor would be a requirement of this operation.  What fool would leave that to chance?  One thing can be postulated with confidence: if there was an actual plot to facilitate the destruction of the towers we can be sure it would be perpetrated by professionals.  Mole’s case for dismissal is hardly serious.

But Mole’s just warming up.

The first plane struck the North Tower (Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building.4 Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck.

Here Mole speaks anecdotally to explain the 58 minute collapse of WTC 2–the last hit but the first to fall.  And admittedly, 58 minutes seems a short amount of time.  But so is the 102 minutes it took for Building 1 to fall.  And even the 8 hours it took for WTC 7 to fall seems exceedingly fast and violent compared to the damage done.  But this is just a feeling.  The point remains: comparing the fall times of these buildings as “slow,” “medium” and “fast” does little to clarify the official explanation, nor, more importantly, does it help to clarify the mechanisms that actually caused the collapses.

Secondly, Mole employs an “is-ought” argument for nature of the destruction witnessed.  This is indicative of an uniquisitive thought process that essentially says “well, of course it happened that way!”  Even though the South Tower was the second building hit and was hit at an incidental angle compared to the North Tower, Mole makes a perceptional argument, saying in essence, “intuition does not serve us well in this situation because the South Tower, although hit later and less directly than the North Tower, was a more catastrophic blow by virtue of the asymmetrical damage–not in spite of it as would seem more in line with basic physics.”  As in much of the NIST literature regarding the collapses, the theoretical cart is put before the forensic horse.

After giving birth to that turd of a non-argument, Mole moves on to the issue of the fire temperatures upon which so much hinges:

… most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F. Flames of this temperature would be far short of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal.

My emphasis.  This central tenet of the official story acknowledges that the only fuel sources in the WTC complex at the time in any real volume were hydrocarbon sources, wood, paper and plastics ignited by kerosene.  With this acknowledgment comes the additional requirement that the fires be hot enough to cause the massive and violent structural damage we all witnessed that day.  To this end, supporters of the official theory have made much use of misunderstanding the difference between gas temperature and material temperature.  Mole is no exception:

Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.

My emphasis again.  Temperature of what?  After reading this, I cannot help but picture Phil Mole in a wide-collar, polyester suit and a fake-ass smile waving a brochure for a “once in a lifetime opportunity”.  No thanks, Phil.  First and foremost, what temperatures is Mole referring to?  Gas?  Surfaces?  It is poor science to say the least, to conflate the maximum temperature of a heat source with the maximum temperature of a material that may or may not have been exposed to that source. This point is so basic, I feel like making it explicit will insult your intelligence.  Yet, Mole writes his piece with authority, as if his word puts the issue to bed once and for all.

Office fire simulations conducted by Underwriters Laboratories under the direction of NIST found that temperatures went above 1000F for only a few of the tests, and when it did, it could not sustain it for much more than 8 or 10 minutes.  They used a variety of materials but through the course of testing found that the surrogate material combinations of wood, paper, plastic and hydrocarbon fuels were irrelevant to the outcome of the tests: a little over 1000F for about 10 minutes was simply as hot as they were going to get.

The one factor which affected the outcome most was material arrangement.  Several simulations broke down the furniture and various surrogates into piles.  Not surprisingly, the heat curve went higher, but for a shorter amount of time than the undisturbed, more fuel-scattered tests.  The results support Eagar and Musso’s original estimates of a maximum gas temperature of about 1100F, but with the added knowledge that these temperatures could not have been sustained for more than about 10 or maybe 20 minutes at most.

Furthermore, NIST acknowledges early on that of all the steel they sampled (which amounted to approximately 1% of all the steel) the hottest exposure temperatures they could document were about 250C or just under 500F.  Yet it seems Mole, as well as NIST, must presume the existence of higher temperature-exposed steel despite the fact that the only steel in the official record found to have gotten hotter was the mysteriously melted steel reported in the FEMA/BPAT Appendix C report:

Evidence of a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near surface microstructure.

It is unclear why supporters of the official conspiracy theory are so incurious about these samples.  Given that one sample is definitely from WTC 7 and the other sample is either from WTC 1 or 2, this cannot be dismissed as an isolated event.  Given that there are first-hand account of molten steel, these samples seem to fall into the category of corroborative evidence for such.  Unsurprisingly, Mole is neither willing to mention the FEMA/BPAT study nor take the accounts of eye witnesses seriously:

… the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.9 To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it.

My emphasis.  But we do NOT need to take anyone’s word for the melted steel recovered by the FEMA/BPAT team, yet there is not even an acknowledgment of its existence by Mole.  Why not?  And how “superficial” is the similarity of molten steel to molten aluminum?  And so, with a couple of passing comments, Mole washes his hands of any and all considerations of molten steel or iron.

So, I have to ask Phil Mole: Why didn’t you consider all the evidence surrounding molten steel and iron when you were dismissing the non-official accounts of what happened to the WTC complex?  Why didn’t you consider the FEMA/BPAT report or the USGS report which contained evidence of extremely high temperature reactions?  Why not take into account all the evidence before making a judgment in regard to the legitimacy of non-official theories of the collapses?

Until you make yourself clear, we can only assume.

About these ads

44 Responses to “Skeptics and Conspiracies”

  1. Holy shit. Is this a joke?

    • Please, take issue. But what is it you want to criticize?

      • raiseadragon Says:

        I don’t get it. You comment “very sloppy reasoning throughout this thing” on the Skeptics site but in your criticism article here all you talk about is the collapses?

        • What don’t you get? Did you read Phil Mole’s article, then mine? If not, or if you didn’t read for comprehension, then try again. There’s no point throwing out your assessment on my article if you don’t take the strongest parts of it and try to dismantle them.

          Like I’ve said before, if you have some criticism of what I wrote, my reasoning, specific facts in question, whatever, then frame them and we can carry on a discussion about it. But just claiming that “all I talk about is the collapses” isn’t much of a criticism.

          It’s just an opinion. It’s a bare assertion: a claim made with nothing backing it up. That’s fine. You’re free to do that too, but you should be aware that it’s not a real criticism. You have to pick out a line or an argument and criticize THAT in part or as a whole.

          Why is it so fucking hard to have a real conversation about this?

          • raiseadragon Says:

            I’m not the same guy as Jenkins, but I am the “raiseadragon” guy, and I was wondering why you referred to sloppy reasoning “throughout this thing,” which seemed to mean the entire Phil Mole article, if you only delved into one part of it in your criticism. It seems self-contradictory. I did indeed only skim this article, but all it talks about is the collapses and disputed steel temperatures.

            • raiseadragon Says:

              I did however read the entire Phil Mole article for comprehension as well as the comments.

            • Well, Raiseadragon, as my article states, there are several criticisms worth pointing out:
              1. Mole’s dismissal of the similarities between CD and WTC7 collapse
              2. His criticism of a CD plot by means of having to know which floor to ignite first
              3. His conflation of gas temperature with steel temperature in accounting for fire damage
              4. His dismissal of all accounts of molten steel as molten aluminum
              5. His failure to account for all the relevant evidence, i.e., the Worcester Poly steel.

              These are not the only things wrong with his article, I agree, however, this is a good bit to chew on if Mole wants anyone to take his arguments seriously.

              Now, to you: what do you mean that I “only delve into one part of [the arguments]“? Obviously, you need to do more than “just skim” this article or frankly, admit that you have no business taking issue with its contents. To be clear, I enjoy a good discussion about these issues as they bear directly on our lives and will continue to do so for some time into the future. AT THE SAME TIME, if you want me to take your criticisms seriously, then make a case. That requires, first and foremost, READING THE ARTICLE YOU ARE SUPPOSEDLY CRITICIZING.

              Until you do that, what are you adding to the discussion? How are your insights helping point out my failings if you don’t even properly understand what I wrote? Read it, AND THEN CRITICIZE.

  2. Huh. I just stumbled onto this, and after reading it I had to go find the article by Mole. I read both with care. Mole’s article relies heavily on speculative assumption. This article appeals to logic based on observable evidence. The contrast is stark – Mole loses.

  3. interesting, but i would like to know how you explain the reason why anyone would find it necessary to both demolish the buildings and hit them with planes? either by itself would provide a sufficient scare to the American public. Also, how could a administration so adept at complex conspiratorial operations fail to provide any proof of WMD’s in Iraq?

    • Those are really good questions.

      First, Why would anyone find it necessary to both demolish the buildings and hit them with planes?

      There are a couple possibilities:

      1. One group was responsible for both successful hijacking AND wiring buildings. This scenario is for those who dismiss 9/11 conspiracies by virtue of the fact that no CIA attache would sit down with Bin Laden or an alQueda rep and devise a unified plan. I certainly don’t think that’s what happened.

      2. More than one group was responsible for separate portions of the events. Welcome to the real world. One group is told “wire these buildings up. Here’s your timeline.” Another (more powerful) group makes sure a few visas get approved despite watch lists. This group is (or groups are) responsible mostly for removing obstacles.

      The first (demolition) group is hired by someone who works for Silverstein but is former military or closely allied. The point is to blow the buildings REGARDLESS of whether or not planes are flown into them or not. Their primary motivation is to fulfill a high price contract. Silverstein’s motivation is to cash in on the insurance. But because there’s so much loose intel on a possible hijacking, (with the purpose of weaponinzing the aircraft), Siverstein’s group can anticipate the outcome. Upon ANY outcome, they will blow the buildings the same day as the attacks–whatever form they take.

      There are many other scenarios that could substitute as reasonable plans to profit from that day. It just doesn’t take a lot of imagination to think a scenario to overcome an objection of “overkill.”

      So, How could an administration so adept at complex conspiratorial operations fail to provide any proof of WMD’s in Iraq?

      First, I don’t claim 9/11 was the work of the “Bush administration.” That’s childish. It’s not my claim. I’m suggesting there are/were elements within the government that were instrumental in allowing this tragedy to unfold. They didn’t “mastermind” the whole operation; however, they laid the legal groundwork upon which to allow a perfect storm to manifest. Handing over authorization to scramble intercepts over to the SoD, for example. Running multiple war games involving hijacked aircraft and inserting artificial blips on the radar screens, stifling fruitful investigations at critical moments… The list goes on.

      This doesn’t translate to WMD’s in Iraq for a variety of reasons, but mainly, Iraq isn’t the US. The people who made policy changes here aren’t authorized to make policy changes in Iraq. We didn’t use the US military to conduct a covert operation destroying the Twin Towers. They were most probably private contractors–mercenaries. Mixed crew mostly likely. These were competent, independent minded people who don’t give a damn about a passport. Secondly, high ranking US military leaders were almost uniformly AGAINST the war in Iraq. And for good reason, it turns out. High enough on the totem pole, and you don’t have to carry out secret, illegal shit for people you don’t like–especially for a reason you don’t agree with.

      Again, there are many scenarios that explain that fact without contradiction. It doesn’t follow that because groups within the government are willing and able to kill Americans that they are both willing and able to plant WMD’s in Iraq. Category mistake.

      • The buildings were prepared not necessarily wired. The PNAC coined the idea and Cheney, Rumsfed and others ran with it. The preparation labor was performed by Israelis who were actually taken into custody and then sent home.
        http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_9378.shtml
        “To close our survey of Mr. Thorn’s evidence against Israel, 140 Israeli nationals were apprehended before 9/11 as part of a massive investigation into an espionage ring that was operating in America. Following the 9/11 attacks, an additional 60 Israelis were detained who had tie-ins with Israel and September 11th. Made in Israel reports that these Israeli spies were tracking the Muslim “patsies” later blamed for 9/11, along with targeting and penetrating U.S. military bases, the DEA, FBI, other government facilities and the private homes of law enforcement officials and intelligence personnel. “Friends” don’t spy on friends to this magnitude unless they are planning evil against them.”

  4. If I may add one thought on this regarding motivation, which after I accepted that the official explanation was devoid of defensible support, I found to be the most difficult aspect of 9/11 to grasp. We’ll likely be left to to wonder forever as to why so many groups, many of whom must have been American and have seen themselves as participating in something good for the country, were able to bring about such a destructive and tragic event. As you mention above, it’s hard to believe that there wasn’t at least complicity at very high levels of government, which begs the question: what good could anyone have seen coming from allowing 9/11 to unfold? And, however weak it may seem, I have concluded that a classic Faustian Bargain was struck in answer to this. It progresses first from the acknowlegment that we are entering a critical endgame of cheap energy. Second, that this will prove to be a very painful, costly and dire (in human terms) reduction in our modern way of life. Thus, acquiring a very strong presence in Iraq where a large amount of the last remaining easy oil exists was a morally defensible trade against the horror of 9/11. There is little doubt that from a social engineering standpoint, 9/11 was a brilliant ploy to galvanize the nation for war, especially one in the Middle East. So successful, in fact, that we did it knowingly without any causal link between the stated reasons for war and the event that riled us up into a frenzy. The virus of war fever had been released and there was no stopping us.

    • I think you sum up the psychology well of those involved. There are only a couple of things I would add in consideration of motivations:

      1. For most Americans, the idea of perpetrating this act on one’s own people seems unthinkable. After knowing many sociopaths who work in official capacities, it’s not really much of a stretch to me to imagine that a few people involved knew what the outcome would be and did it anyway because they just couldn’t care less.

      That’s probably not a satisfying thought to many people, but the fact is, these people exist.

      2. The only way an operation of this sort could have been carried out was via a military structure. The participants were probably former military. Compartmentalization would have been standard procedure in this case. The only thing you need to know is information pertaining to your job. Big picture questions are above your pay-grade and not relevant. I’m sure many participants were smart enough to figure out the implications of what they were doing, but design constraints required a separation between the “boss” paying for the operation, the “foreman” heading up the jobs on site, and the rest of the crews.

      And then there’s the money. If you dangle a few million in cash in front of people–especially mercenaries, there are few people they wouldn’t snuff out for cash.

  5. Excellent article.

    Personally, I don’t see any reason why you should have to address the whodunit questions. I, for one, refuse to even talk about it. Of course I have theories as to who is responsible and why, but those are questions that should be presented to a grand jury. When a person tries to press me on who was behind the attacks and why, I use this as rationale for why there should be an independent investigation.

    Remember that you are not a scientist and neither am I, but we don’t have to be. We are jurors. That’s all. If a person is found dead and there is a gun lying on the ground that matches the wounds, bloody fingerprints, footprints, etc. all pointing to one person, no one would argue, “Well, the forensic evidence is there… but why would he do that to her? He wouldn’t do that to her so it couldn’t have been him.” No, if the evidence is that overwhelming, it is used to make an arrest. Even if a motive is never uncovered, the person will probably be found guilty. And how do trials work? Experts come in and talk about the science, while normal people make the final judgment.

    The American people have been tricked into this mindset of thinking that we have to be scientists. I hear it all the time. “I’ve heard the stuff about molten metal, but I’m not a scientist so I don’t know.” Of course no one expects every individual to become an expert on physics, architecture, engineering, and so on. That’s ridiculous. Just like in a courtroom, the experts have done their work, and we have every right to make a judgment now. One the one hand, we have Skeptic Magazine and Chris Mohr. On the other, we have ae911truth and Richard Gage. There is no shortage of information, and we’ve heard the arguments from both sides, so it’s time for us to render a verdict. Did the buildings come down due to fire, or were explosives involved? I say there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that explosives had to be involved. If this were a trial, fire would walk free and explosives would get convicted. But back to the dead woman and the gun: there is no trial to determine if the evidence is enough to even make an arrest, which makes the whole thing even more asinine.

    The American people are JURORS. Any pressure to be anything more is pure propaganda.

  6. P.S. – I was at the debate between Chris Mohr and Richard Gage, and I would just like to clarify that Chris is a really great person. Richard had been looking for someone to have a civil debate with for years, and Chris was the only one to answer the call. He stood in a room packed full of people who disagreed with him (almost the entire crowd) and stood his ground. That takes balls. You know how loud some people can be. Afterward, he even came with Richard and all us “truthers” to dinner. So few people are willing to have a real conversation that isn’t just name-calling and finger-pointing. Much respect to Chris Mohr.

    • In order to debate coherently against the truther argument you have to be intelligent enough to know you’re lying to protect scum who planned and benefited from 9/11. Mohr deserves no one’s respect.

      • It’s been my experience that it’s more useful to take the Official Conspiracy Theory advocates at their word and with the most favorable interpretation of events to fit that theory. Namely, that 19 hijackers acted alone and simply got lucky. Really, really lucky.

        To accuse the OCT advocates of being in collusion with murderers just leads to a dead end. It is a non-productive conversation, and it also begs the question because it’s putting your conclusion into the mouth of your interlocutor. That’s not what he’s advocating, so it’s simply poor logic or worse to play that game with them.

        • My comment was more of a know your enemy declaration. There are many educated people who believe the 19 hijacker nonsense who have no idea that WTC 7 even existed let let alone collapsed in a heap. Then there are the anonymous online OCT advocates who are literate and prolific in their protectiveness of the OTC.

          There are so few real life faces actively defending OCT that those who are seen, such as Mohr, are certainly connected to those hiding behind the OTC. Where would a layman such as Mohr get the information to coherently debate Gage who has many thousands of publicly known experts to draw from?

          What’s the point of knowing what didn’t happen on 9/11 if you are just are satisfied with going round and round and round with liars who are protecting the 9/11 murderers?

          • Lots of smart, educated people believe the official story. That’s the point of propaganda. The few people who are lying and covering up the truth are working tirelessly to make everyone who questions the official story look like a quack. They have also put out reports based on computer simulations supposedly detailing how the “collapses” took place. When propaganda works, even the most intelligent people are susceptible to the lies. For example, I believe that religion is used to control the masses, but that doesn’t mean that every religious person is part of the conspiracy. Through indoctrination and social pressure, otherwise rational people are made to believe that a virgin gave birth to a baby whose death will send them to a pretty afterlife. How ridiculous is that?

            I know several people who have seen all the same evidence I have and they still believe the official story. Nothing will change their minds. It’s frustrating, but I don’t think my friends are part of the coverup. I think the government and media have spent over 10 years and zillions of dollars propagating a myth, and that their efforts have been largely successful.

            Chris Mohr is not an accomplice in the attacks. That’s absurd. He’s a guy who goes to those “debunking” sites and thinks he has an answer to every piece of evidence found. I agree that the evidence is overwhelming, and I’m always shocked when a person with actual knowledge of the events still believes the official story, but the fact is some people do. The way to win an argument is not to insult a person’s intelligence. The reason I have so much respect for Chris Mohr is that most of the people in the room thought like you do – that he must either be a huge fucking idiot or an accomplice – and yet he debated anyway. I told you where I stand on religion, but I don’t know if I’d accept an invitation to debate it at the Westboro Baptist Church. Richard Gage had been looking for someone to debate with for a long time, and Chris Mohr was the only one with a thick enough skin. He was also very kind and respectful, and I don’t appreciate you accusing him of being a shill.

            Unless… does this make me a shill too?

            • You may “outgrow” your religion but hopefully you’ll never forget its values so that your children can “outgrow” it too. Can you imagine the values that would be instilled/enforced by ever changing governments?

          • Mike, it’s simply bad pool, you know? You just don’t start a discussion with any hope of getting something out of it by accusing your interlocutor of complicity in murder.

            If you think that’s productive, you should probably keep it to yourself because you’re doing more damage than good. Stick to the agreed facts, the published forensic evidence, and good logic. The rest is a war of perception.

            • Bad pool? People in power DID 9/11. The MSM has never bothered to investigate 9/11. The internet is the only real source of 9/11 FACTS. How can all the MSM completely support the OCT without being aligned with the People in power who did 9/11?

              Do you think the people in power in 2001 are no longer in
              power? Who do you think is supplying Mohr with information to parry so adroitly?

              Who do you think is making up the NONSENSE SCIENCE? “gravity collapse”

              Do you really think all the TV people who ridicule those who believe as you do DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA to protect the powerful people who did 9/11?

              No matter whether you think Mohr is a righteous dude, he is your enemy and my enemy and America’s enemy.

          • Mohr has a strong opinion, same as me. I didn’t know anyone personally who died on 9/11, so I have no direct connection to it, but seeing misinformation being sold as truth angers me so much that I feel obligated to speak about it. I’m assuming that Mohr, who is also able to think for himself, feels the exact same way only he thinks that we are the ones spreading the misinformation. If a person passionately argues religion, that does not mean that they’re involved with those who use religion to control the masses. People think different thoughts and have different opinions, and that’s just a fact of life that we have to deal with. It is very very unlikely that Mohr has any connection to the people in charge. Besides, did you watch the debate? His “facts” are just the same crap that Popular Mechanics and Skeptic Magazine argue. He’s clearly read a couple of “debunking” books, but nothing he said suggests he has any inside information.

            I didn’t realize I would take this so personally, but you know what? I had a damn good time hanging out with Chris Mohr and Richard Gage after the debate, and Chris is a really really nice guy. We talked about a lot of things, not just 9/11. Richard likes him a lot too. As far as I know the two of them are still friends. Would a big 9/11 Truth activist like Richard Gage be friends with someone who was involved in the attacks? Think about what you’re saying, man.

  7. adarascarlet,

    Thanks for reading. I totally agree that we doubters are under no obligation to give an entire, coherent explanation. There are still a lot of missing pieces to this puzzle that may or may not ever come to light, but because some people refuse to imagine how it could have unfolded, I don’t mind laying out some possible scenarios.

    I think it’s a helpful exercise to open peoples’ minds to the possibilities of the how the WTC complex ended up in a pile of dust. I’m not married to these speculations, but they allow us to see that, for instance, it makes more sense that there were several groups with separate but related missions that day–and the days or months leading up to it–and some likely knew nothing about the others.

    These separate groups were likely composed of ex-military from various countries including ours. Groups at the higher command posts–i.e. the SoD and VP–likely had a wall erected to insulate themselves from the ground operations. They probably had no direct knowledge of these groups activities, or even their existence–just an “understanding” of what to do in an emergency. In fact, it makes sense that middle-management was THE essential coordinating level between ground operations and the executive powers.

    Obviously, this is all speculation, but my intent is to describe how these operations actually work. This is business as usual, just a different objective. So, I don’t mean to sound authoritative about the actual complexities of this particular criminal conspiracy, just pragmatic about human nature when extruded through a bureaucracy–with the allure of a shit ton of money behind it.

  8. Mike, I’m replying to your last post in this post because the comment system here is poorly designed.

    My main objection to your logic is that you think someone in power must supply Mohr with reasons to support the official conspiracy. Like they gave him a piece of paper with talking points like “gravity collapse” and such.

    I hope you’re kidding, because if you’re not, that’s about the most ridiculous shit I’ve ever heard. No one needs to supply people with reasons for believing or not believing. The desire to believe or not believe is enough to cause a person to create their own theories–to come to their own conclusions. No one need supply them.

    This logic is tried and true. Try asking ANYONE who voted for Bush II if they think he perpetrated 9/11. (Personally, I don’t think he had any idea, but that’s just speculation on my part.) And there ARE notable figures, namely Steven Jones, who DID vote for Bush/Cheney but later became the world’s most famous advocate for a new 9/11 investigation. However, he represents the exception, certainly not the rule.

    The vast majority of Americans who voted republican in 2000 don’t have the emotional capacity to imagine they voted a terrorist organization into the White House. It simply does not compute. So naturally, rationalizations take over. Human beings are born masters of rationalization. Mohr is no exception to this rule.

    So do yourself and anyone who wants to see the events of 9/11/2001 properly investigated a favor and learn how to have a real discussion.

    • “My main objection to your logic is that you think someone in power must supply Mohr with reasons to support the official conspiracy. Like they gave him a piece of paper with talking points like “gravity collapse” and such.

      I hope you’re kidding, because if you’re not, that’s about the most ridiculous shit I’ve ever heard. No one needs to supply people with reasons for believing or not believing. The desire to believe or not believe is enough to cause a person to create their own theories–to come to their own conclusions. No one need supply them.”

      Believe? Anybody trumpeting “gravity collapse” is plain old disingenuous. I’m talking about the people prepping him being linked to the perpetrators. The OCT standard bearer is a minister? They couldn’t find an engineer?

      Do you realize what is being discussed here? It’s not he said she said. Mohr is defending/covering up a treasonous attack on America. And the perpetrators are still in control of our country.

      Also, do you see the MSM as complicit and an ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT?

      • Look Mike, I apperciate your enthusiasm. I really do. But if we are to make any progress towards a new investigation of 9/11, we have to lead people to make the conclusions you and I have already drawn. You cannot force a conclusion on people and expect it to change anyone’s mind.

        This is the same problem the OCT people have: they start from a conclusion and just repeat it in a number of ways hoping that the constant hammering will end the discussion. That is not the way to make progress on this issue.

        Calling our interlocutors “murderers” or accusing them of complicity of murder is just closing their minds to the possibilitiy that there is any truth to be had.

        Why is it you are unable to come to terms with the possibility that some people just don’t want to think uncomfortable thoughts? Or that some people don’t do much critical thinking? Our world is full of them. I am one of them sometimes. Now the media? That’s a different can of worms altogether…

        • “Mike Said:
          March 4, 2013 at 10:01 am ” see previous

          You seem to have interwoven the OCT debaters with the audience. Identifying what our interlocutors, as you call them, are up to and asserting that they don’t believe a damn thing they spew isn’t confrontational. It’s a heads up. I’m telling the patriots that a person(s) who lies so vociferously and vehemently with such scorn is not to be mingled with. There are no stand up advocates of the OCT view. The OCT advocates are aligned with the wormy media.

  9. Well done. I am not scientifically trained and have little or nothing of value to contribute to the discussion, but I’ve been searching for some kind of middle ground on this issue and I appreciate your attempts to provide it.

  10. Regarding 7 WTC it seemed quite clear to me from the transcripts of emergency services between the collapse of the North Tower to 5.20pm or so that the collapse of the building was entirely expected. It was ravaged by fire, there was a “hole 20 stories high” in the side of the building, and rescue servicemen were relieved to be “pulled out” of the building and the general area at 3 o’clock.

    Video of 7 WTC shows clearly the holed side of the building collapsing first. Because of the relatively untouched far side of 7 WTC, in most of the video available it looks counter-intuitive to think the building could have collapsed so inexplicably. However when you look at the video of it’s collapse, and consider the transcripts of emergency services working that area, it’s much clearer how the collapse could have occurred.

    Transcripts and photos:
    http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

    More photos and analysis:
    http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

    A youtube video that provides some good arguments in support of an expected collapse of 7 WTC:

    Northside view, with penthouse collapsing first (and whole southside half of building, though not visible in this video) and 8 seconds or so later, the rest of the building comes down:

    Video that shows that NIST is correct and that 7 WTC collapse was not freefall:

    • Saying that a thing is “expected” gets you no closer to explaining how it mechanically happened. And as a point of correction, the NIST report says that WTC7 did indeed fall at “gravitational acceleration” for about 8 stories. That’s another way of saying “freefall”, fyi.

      All your response demonstrates is that you have a psychological need to deny the possibility of foul play–of denying that you may have been fed a load of bs.

      You can ease your mind all you want with other people’s expectations, HOWEVER, until you can explain HOW this building actually fell, what mechanisms failed and in what way to produce the effects we all see on the videos, you have done nothing but fed your own capacity for rationalization. NO LAWS OF PHYSICS WERE BROKEN THAT DAY.

      There is nothing unexplainable about what happened. There is nothing mythical or supernatural about the towers collapsing. Yet you cannot find ANYWHERE an explanation that could possibly make sense of a hydrocarbon fire causing “gravitational acceleration” of a 47 story steel, glass and concrete building.

      Until you do, you have only placated yourself.

  11. I personally blog as well and I am composing a thing very close to this blog, “Skeptics and Conspiracies murderformoney”.
    Would you mind in the event I personallywork with a bit of of your own points?
    Thank you -Rosalyn

  12. Ted Horsepower Says:

    Hi Underscorejh,
    I have read widely on this subject for some years now and would like to say how much I appreciate the ‘voice’ you have found to express the profound difficulties that exist in the OCT. I think you grasp well the absolute necessity of steering carefully through minefield. It serves the purpose of truth to keep the light tightly focused on the cusp of reasonable enquiry. I have learned a lot. I also respect your attitude to Chris Mohr. Thanks.

    • Thank you, Ted. That is high praise. My name is Jay.

      • Hi Jay, ‘ high praise’ perhaps but justified, and the reason I believe it’s due is because these debates so often devolve into a hopeless trench warfare in which both sides appear to have run out of real ammunition and end up hurling insults at each other. I think that those who genuinely pursue the truth of what happened on that day must be cautious and diligent to establish a solid framework of reasonable questions that sane people will see as worthy of pursuit. The purveyors of deceit will only be encouraged and empowered by any deviation from the path of the sober and the measured. Keep up the good work!

        • 9/11 isn’t a discussion of Senate votes during WWII. 9/11 is about a treasonous attack on US citizens by people who to this day wield great power in the US. People who take the time and make the effort to debate on the OCT side are not people who believe their USA would never do such a thing. They are not patriots. As plain as you and I see the 3 controlled demolitions they too see them and are doing their darnedest to prevent you and I from exposing the truth to Americans. They are hiding acts of treason and protecting traitors. You can be civil but surely you must realize stand up guys don’t debate on the side of treason and traitors. This isn’t some sort of debating exercise.
          The traitors depend on your passivity. They depend on you to not make the evening news. As long as you treat the OCT people like debating buddies they win.

          • Mike, your reply is shot through with absolutes that would be very difficult for you to evidence. How can you be so certain of the intent of heart of each and every person who resists anything other than the OCT? I understand that there must be some who know and are acting criminally, but I can’t say for certain which of the defenders are. I originally bought into the official story and then became suspicious, fluctuated quite a bit before finally becoming deeply skeptical.

            Surely it must serve the cause of truth well if we carry ourselves thoughtfully with dignity and self-control. Those who are consciously lying will not be convinced to yield their position with insults and derision. Those who are genuine but not yet convinced will hardly be seduced by carelessness.
            There is nothing to convince the liars of – they know the truth but have a vested interest in the lie.

            You are mistaking prudence for passivity.

  13. Steve Sums Says:

    The steel in Appendix C of the FEMA report did not melt, it was corroded in fire at temperatures 1000C or less. Temperatures found in office fires, and the debris pile on and after 911. The report clearly states temperatures less than 1000C and proof is in the eutectic formed, which people confuse with melted steel.
    19 terrorists did 911 – too simple – so some people make up fantasy.

    • It’s interesting you should mention the steel in the FEMA/BPAT report, since neither the 911 Commission Report nor the NIST report try to explain how a eutectic could have formed AT ALL. Nor do they bother to investigate the mere possibility that steel that has undergone a “rapid, high-temperature sulfidation and corrosion attack” might have contributed to the unusually energetic collapse witnessed that day. Here’s a good metaphor for those interested in such things:

      Let’s say you come across a dead body. There is a cliff nearby. There is a vile of a substance known to cause death near the body. And there are tiny, insect-bite-sized holes in the neck of the dead person. The “official investigators” see the cliff, look for footprints and find NONE. From that, they conclude that it was a suicide, and the wind has erased the evidence of footprints–as their analysis predicted.

      They see the vile of poison and conclude it was non-contributory because they expected to find it.

      They see the tiny wounds in the neck and conclude they are a result of insect bites after the person jumped. Hence, they are non-contributory as well. Final conclusion: Suicide. Done.

      Would you say this was a well-conducted investigation given the information you have on this? Hopefully not. Most people, with a modicum of common sense would want to do an assessment of toxins in the body, fingerprint the vile of poison, test the neck wounds against known insect bites, and try to corroborate the damage of the body with that of high-impact damage. But they don’t. You apologists will always fall flat on your face in light of people who are not prone to sales pitches. That’s all the NIST report was–a brochure with fancy graphs and lots of “sciency” sounding sentences. For anyone who has taken the time to read and understand what the reports actually say, it’s clear they never actually answer the question of how the towers fell with any kind of corroborative, evidence-based explanation.

      You say the steel in Appendix C (herein referred to as the WPI steel for Worchester Poly Institute, as they studied it), did not “melt”, rather it “corroded.” That’s true. But how does that distinction help you remove the steel from consideration as a possible cause of the destruction? Whether it melted or underwent a “high-temperature sulfidation”, it still lost it’s structural integrity in a very short amount of time.

      It’s like saying, “that person didn’t have a heart attack, they had a pulmonary embolism, so it wasn’t poor health that caused them to die.” Wrong. Either way, the person is dead by an acute health problem. Either way, the steel lost its strength, QUICKLY. Within minutes or seconds, depending on the specifics of the eutectic mixture in question. That’s another HUGE concern with those who want to dismiss this as a piece of evidence: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE EXISTENCE OF A EUTECTIC?

      The eutectically-blazed steel happened in AT LEAST 2 buildings that day: WTC 7 and either WTC1 or 2. How uncurious do you have to be to discount 2 separate instances of this very strange occurance? If NIST was actually concerned with building safety in future building fires, why didn’t they even attempt to recreate the circumstances by which the eutectic arose? You know why: because they never gave a shit about building safety. The whole report was a whitewash.

      If the primary authors actually gave a shit about finding out why those buildings actually fell, the WPI steel would be the primary focus of their investigation. Obviously that didn’t happen.

  14. I reset the comment thread once again because this system is poorly designed.

    Mike Said:

    “You seem to have interwoven the OCT debaters with the audience. Identifying what our interlocutors, as you call them, are up to and asserting that they don’t believe a damn thing they spew isn’t confrontational. It’s a heads up. I’m telling the patriots that a person(s) who lies so vociferously and vehemently with such scorn is not to be mingled with. There are no stand up advocates of the OCT view. The OCT advocates are aligned with the wormy media.”

    *************************

    People like Shyam Sunder, who is an obvious shill and for whom much rests on the conclusions drawn in the NIST report, should be treated as academically hostile. Yes, I understand that. But I hold no hope in convincing him or those with similar motivations.

    I am interested in subverting their power and authority through educating the regular people who want to understand what the issues are. For me, the most powerful argument is one based in thermodynamics: for every expression of energy, a greater amount of energy must preceed it. That is, the official account has an energy gap. There isn’t enough energy in the OCT to account for melted steel, megatons of pulverized concrete, horizontally blasted structural members, as well as a host of other forensic evidence.

    I have some faith in the ability of our fellow humans to see through the bullshit when presented with common sense explanations. It is these people we should be focusing our time and efforts on, not on loud accusations of treason and murder for people who will never change their minds. When others see one group accusing another of murder, and the second group pointing to a bunch of data (however ill-executed), all that does is reinforce the status quo. If that’s your aim, I can’t stop you, but if you are sincere in your beliefs, then you would do yourself a favor by taking an education-based approach rather than an accusation-based approach.

    Mike, tell me what you think you can accomplish by calling people traitors and murderers? What is the best-case scenario you can imagine with your tactics? Play this out so I can see where you’re trying to go with this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: